See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235288112

The glass ceiling of corporate social

responsibility: Consequences of a business case
approach towards CSR

Article in International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy October 2010

DOI: 10.1108/01443331011085222

CITATIONS READS

20 1,060

2 authors:

Andre Nijhof Ronald Jeurissen

Nyenrode Business Universiteit Nyenrode Business Universiteit
76 PUBLICATIONS 845 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 303 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Holistic stakeholder approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andre Nijhof on 07 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-333X.htm

IJSSP
30,11/12
The glass ceiling of corporate
social responsibility
Consequences of a business case approach
618 towards CSR
Andre H.J. Nijhof
EIBE, Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Breukelen, The Netherlands, and
Ronald J.M. Jeurissen
Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Breukelen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to clarify that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has come a long way
by the prevailing business case approach, but increasingly hits a glass ceiling. The glass ceiling
metaphor refers to the inherent limitations created by a business case approach towards CSR.
Design/methodology/approach The main findings are based on an analysis of existing
literature on strategies for CSR. The findings are illustrated with a case from the Dutch National
Research Program on CSR.
Findings The very term corporate social responsibility suggests that the debate about CSR is all
about responsibilities of corporations. Maybe it once was, but nowadays it is much more about new
market opportunities and a business-wise approach to ecological and social problems. CSR has
evolved into a marketable asset of companies, in which profit-oriented managers and entrepreneurs
are willing to invest. This commodification of CSR has helped to make it acceptable in the business
world, but this comes at a considerable price from the perspective of the social responsibility of
business. It is especially argued in the paper that a business case approach results in opportunism,
leaves institutional blockades intact and drives out the intrinsic motivation for engaging in CSR.
Research limitations/implications Because of the chosen conceptual research approach, the
propositions put forward in the paper need further grounding in empirical research.
Practical implications In order to shatter this glass ceiling, managers have to deal with a
paradoxical situation. They should maintain their appreciation of economic constraints and at the
same time combine this with a sincere recognition of moral values. This at least requires that
managers should show commitment to certain social values, be able to defend it in good and bad
times and prepare all employees to deal with the inherent dilemmas of bearing different
responsibilities.
Originality/value Although the paper builds on earlier articles on limitations of a business case
approach, it is the first paper to argue for a glass ceiling of CSR created by the inherent limitations of
such an approach.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Glass ceilings, Business policy, The Netherlands, Ethics
Paper type Conceptual paper

International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy
Vol. 30 No. 11/12, 2010
pp. 618-631
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-333X
DOI 10.1108/01443331011085222
1. Introduction
At a major bank in Europe the board decided in 2007 to integrate corporate social
responsibility (CSR) more into the core processes of the organization. The bank already
had a long history of corporate philanthropy, micro credits, green funds and
transparent reporting, but CSR was not yet a key ingredient in their lending and
investment activities. It was decided to start at the corporate client department and to
develop a policy to assess every prospect not only on financial criteria, but also on CSR
criteria. In the implementation of this policy the supervisors regularly communicated
their commitment to the new policy. All financial analysts had to do an e-learning
session on CSR and CSR checklists were developed for the relevant sectors. Still, most
employees talked about the project as a waste of time and filled in the checklist just by The glass
box ticking, without putting much effort into really probing the specific CSR
characteristics of their clients. When this was discussed in the team it turned out that
ceiling of
the CSR analysis just did not make sense to most of the employees. Having a CSR
background in economics they understood their professional role strictly in financial
terms. CSR did not fit that self image. In a second phase of the project, therefore, the
team supervisors took much more time to discuss how analysts could add value both to
the bank and to the clients and what that meant for their own performance. One of the
619
points discussed was that banks have a strong influence on the way clients manage
their business and how this influence engenders specific responsibilities. Next, it was
discussed how each employee felt about assessing and discussing CSR issues with
their clients. Most employees felt proud about it, although it still was a bit strange and
unreal to them. Gradually many analysts started to make sense of CSR as an integral
part of their functioning, resulting in much more substantial assessments of the CSR
issues of their clients.
It is our claim in this paper that the problems with implementing CSR programmes
illustrated in this case refer to a much more general problem in the CSR discourse. In
essence this problem is that CSR is increasingly stepping aside from its moral
foundation, whereas this foundation is an inherent and necessary condition of success
when companies want to embed CSR in the whole organization. More specifically, we
will argue that first CSR tends to become irrelevant and inherently limited if it loses its
foundation in ethics and second that this foundation in ethics is jeopardized by the
prevailing business case approach towards CSR. By the latter we mean that initiatives
in the field of CSR are motivated in companies merely through their contribution to
business success defined purely in terms of business economics (such as customer
attraction, employee motivation and free publicity), but not in terms of the ethical
betterment of the company or its responsibility vis-a-vis stakeholders. The implications
for embedding CSR in organizations are discussed at the end of this paper.

2. The business case approach towards CSR

2.1 Conceptualising CSR
The term corporate social responsibility became familiar at the end of the 1990s, but its
origins can be traced back to decades if not centuries earlier. Industrialists have often
looked at broader societal issues rather than just profits, whether it be housing for
employees, their cultural development or employment in general. In the Netherlands, a
famous example is Philips. In the city of Eindhoven, from where the multinational
originates, there are still numerous examples that recall the companys social activities:
residential areas originally built for Philips factory workers, sports facilities (such as the
still famous sporting club Philips Sport Vereniging, or PSV), college grants for employees
children, cultural halls, etc. Examples are available of businesses in England that built
towns, schools and libraries for families and workers as early as the eighteenth century.
Incorporating social and environmental issues on the business agenda is, therefore, not a
new phenomenon. What is new, though, is the intensity and breadth of the efforts made by
private firms in this respect, as well as the increasingly strong societal demands placed on
companies to behave more socially responsible (SER, 2001; Zadek, 2004).
In the discourse on CSR, a wide variety of connotations and definitions exist,
ranging from corporate philanthropic activities to the strategic repositioning of
enterprises in society. Habisch and Jonker give an empirically grounded insight into the
emerging movement in the various nation states of Europe showing the linkages
IJSSP between the concept of CSR and the context-specific historical, political, cultural, and
business developments. They state that, in essence, CSR addresses the reconfiguration
30,11/12 of the balance between those institutions that together make up society (Habisch and
Jonker, 2004, p. 2). In such a definition there is a profound role for various societal
actors in shaping CSR, including enterprises, NGOs and the government (Van Tulder
and Van der Zwart, 2006). Strikingly, the European Commission, unlike the US
government, rejects a substantial governmental role in CSR and instead proposes a
620 concept based on direct interactions between companies and their stakeholders: self-
regulation in short. The EU Green Paper Promoting a European Framework for
Corporate Social Responsibility (2001) defines CSR as a concept whereby companies
integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their
interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. In this perception of CSR it is
recognized that companies have responsibilities towards all their stakeholder groups
and not just their shareholders which are above and beyond that required by law.
This definition was maintained in the subsequent EU White Paper of 2002. This view
is rooted in a diffuse stakeholder theory, requiring business to give societal groups
that are affected by, or are affecting a business, a voice in corporate decision-making
processes (Freeman, 1984).
This overall perspective on CSR can be translated into several approaches to CSR, like
the three approaches identified by Windsor (2006). Based on ethical responsibility theory
she identifies a first approach based on strong corporate self-restraint and altruistic duties.
Second, economic theory advocates an approach to CSR based on market wealth creation
and perhaps customary business ethics. Third, she identifies a corporate citizenship
approach drawing on political theory and stressing the responsibilities of companies as
citizens of the world. Berger et al. (2007) described another overview of strategies in their
article on mainstreaming CSR. First, they describe a social values-led model that has
strong similarities with the ethical responsibility view of Windsor. Second, they
distinguish a syncretic stewardship model that builds upon a broad, holistic view of
communities, stressing the interdependence between different actors and the struggle to
integrate multiple goals both economic and non-economic (Berger et al., 2007, p. 143).
The stewardship model is most similar to the corporate citizenship approach of Windsor
although it is less inspired by a political perspective. Finally and especially relevant for
this article is the business case model of CSR which resembles the economic approach
discerned by Windsor. The business case approach is characterized by the assumption
that any CSR effort should be legitimized by instrumental arguments towards increasing
corporate profits. According to this logic, CSR is best approached through a cost-benefit
perspective (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; McWilliams et al., 2006).

2.2 The business case approach to CSR

At first sight, a business case approach to CSR seems an oxymoron. Solving
environmental problems and dealing with societal problems will involve costs for a
business. This will put a business at a disadvantage compared to competitors, so it is
hard to grasp how CSR can help increase corporate profits (Van de Ven and Jeurissen,
2005) . The bridge across the abyss between CSR and corporate profits was erected by
the enlightened self-interest argument: CSR brings indirect benefits to business, that
will pay out in the longer term. CSR delivers intangible assets to a company, such as
brand loyalty, a better supply chain integration and risk reduction. The optimistic
message of the enlightened self interest argument is that in the longer term, companies
that do good will also do well. The business case approach changed the debate about
CSR drastically (Salzmann et al., 2005). For many years this debate fluctuated between The glass
the poles of Milton Friedmans economistic claim that the social responsibility of
business is to increase its profits (Friedman, 1970) and the moralistic claim that
ceiling of
companies should be willing to even forego profits for the sake of their societal CSR
responsibilities, when that is the morally right thing to do (Mulligan, 1990; Jeurissen,
2000).
But seen from the perspective of the enlightened self-interest argument it is not
necessary to take a side in this debate. There does not have to be a choice between 621
profits and ethics, when it is in a corporations long term self-interest to live up to its
ethical duties. If companies can achieve win-win solutions that promote ethics and
boost profits at the same time, the hard choice between profits and principles
disappears. It was just a matter of using your imagination to, as Peter Drucker
famously put it, make the resolution of a social problem into a business opportunity
(Drucker, 1973, p. 337). Since the late 1990s, this business opportunity approach based
on economic rationale gained a widespread adoption by practitioners (Windsor, 2001;
Vogel, 2005). This adoption was paralleled by academic attention to strengthen the link
between competitive advantage and CSR (McWilliams et al., 2006; Kotler and Lee,
2004) and to argue for the principle of shared value; choices must benefit both
business and society on a win-win basis (Porter and Kramer, 2006, p. 34).
In theory there are different lines to show the business case behind CSR initiatives.
For example Weber (2008) points at five key areas where these positive relations can be
created:
(1) positive effects on company image and reputation;
(2) positive effects on employee motivation, retention and recruitment;
(3) cost savings;
(4) revenue increases from higher sales and market share; and
(5) CSR-related risk reduction or management.
On a corporate level many empirical studies have sought to prove a positive relationship
between CSR and profits, by measuring the relationship between corporate social
performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP). Within the still growing
body of literature on this correlation, especially the meta-studies of Margolis and Walsh
(2003) and Orlitzky et al. (2003), there has been a mixed result. There are studies showing
a positive relationship between CSP and CFP, but other studies show a non-significant or
even a negative relationship. Furthermore these studies resulted in a reflection on what is
actually measured. Even if there is a positive correlation between CSP and CFP it should
not be interpreted as a causal relationship. It could also be that CSR expenditures are
more likely made by more profitable firms (Vogel, 2005).

2.3 Stage models in relation to the business case approach to CSR

To illustrate the business case approach to CSR, consider the stage model of Figure 1.
The model describes the successive stages of a companys maturity in CSR,
summarized from the extant CSR literature.
At most of the stages in CSR maturity, according to this model, it is not necessary
for a company to engage in ethical reflection about CSR at all. For example, in the risk
oriented stage stakeholders outside the organization will have ethical views about CSR
issues, but it is solely the role of the organization to recognize the relevant issues timely
and take adequate measure to control the risks. Also in the cost stage and in the
IJSSP
30,11/12

622

Figure 1.
Stage model for CSR

competitive advantage stage, no ethical thinking is required of the company. It can

guide itself through these stages purely by following the logic of commerce. CSR
activities should contribute to the profit of an organization by reducing energy costs,
economizing on material inputs and seizing strategic business opportunities (Porter
and Kramer, 2006). So, it seems as if CSR can successfully go a very long way without
any ethical reflection. Only at the highest stage of transformation, does ethical
reflection seem to come into play. At this stage, the company has to think of its own
nature and has to define its own societal role. This requires ethical self-reflection, in
terms of identity, values and responsibility. Will economic calculations of costs,
benefits and opportunities be able to propel a company forward along the scale of CSR
maturity, until it finally reaches this realm of ethical reflection, without some prior
ethical exercise? Can ethics thus be the fulfillment and product of economics, provided
that self-interest is grasped in an enlightened enough way? We argue that this is not the
case. A primer in ethics will have to start much earlier in a companys CSR career, for it
to emerge as an ethical actor in the last stage. In fact, from the risk-oriented stage
onward, none of the developmental stages in CSR can successfully be passed without at
least an embryonic understanding of ethics. Just like a parrot can imitate human
speech but cannot reproduce human intentions, so a company that only manages risk
is not exercising corporate responsibility in any meaningful way. Such a company in
fact does not really know what it is doing.
An important argument in favour of a business case approach to CSR has been
brought forward by business ethicists who do not believe that individual firms, let
alone individual managers, can be properly charged with ethical responsibility
(Boatright, 1999; Homann and Blome-Drees, 1992; Homann and Lutge, 2005). They
argue that the ethics of business is better organized at the level of institutions than at
the level of individual actors. These authors mistrust either the propensity or the
ability of individual economic actors to carry through ethical decisions in a business
environment dominated by the constraints of competition. Thus, Boatright pleads for a
moral market model, as opposed to a moral managers model. Instead of increasing
the responsibilities of managers, it would be better to (institutionally) reduce their
options, he maintains (Boatright, 1999, p. 586). We do not want to go deeply into the
philosophical debate on moral manager vs. moral market here. Our position in this
discussion is that individual ethical responsibility in business can never completely be
replaced by institutional arrangements, for reasons related to the inevitable
imperfections of these institutions (see Jeurissen 2000) for a more extensive account of
this position). In perfect markets and perfect hierarchies, individual actors would, The glass
theoretically, no longer need to navigate by their personal ethical compasses. But in the
real world this is just wishful thinking. In this respect, Gauthier hit the nail right on the
ceiling of
head, when he wrote that morality arises from market failure (Gauthier, 1986, p. 84). CSR

3. Objections to a business case approach towards CSR

Despite the widespread adoption of the business case approach towards CSR, there are
also some objections. From a critical business ethics perspective some authors claim
623
that a strictly instrumental approach of CSR detracts attention from the imperative
moral justification of business behaviours (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Jensen, 2001;
Scherer and Palazzo, 2007). A major risk of adopting an instrumental approach to CSR
lies in an emphasis on the means of achieving CSR reputation rather than the end of
social welfare (Gond et al., 2009, p. 76). In this article we will build upon this literature
and concentrate our argument on the internal mechanisms that hamper the potential
impact of a business case approach to CSR. For this, we introduce the metaphor of a
glass ceiling of CSR. With this metaphor we want to stress that companies adopting a
business case approach to CSR create their own limitations a ceiling- with respect to
the possible results. Furthermore we want to emphasize that many people working on
CSR will not be aware of these limitations a ceiling from glass because the
limitations result from indirect effects of a business case approach to CSR. In the next
paragraph we will present a more detailed account of these indirect effects creating this
glass ceiling. Here we just give an overview of them:
. a business case approach to CSR results in opportunism: business cherry-
picking the social issues agenda;
. a business case approach to CSR leaves the institutional blockades intact; and
. a business case approach to CSR drives out intrinsic motivation for CSR.

3.1 A business case approach to CSR results in opportunism

This first argument for the glass ceiling of CSR is based on the resource dependency theory
of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). In order to do well, a business needs resources
from many different stakeholders. These stakeholders have the possibility to reward or
punish a company and many stakeholders will favour a broader positive impact of
companies on society. Therefore it can be theorized that companies that do good will also do
well. This is a key point in a business case approach to CSR because it asks for the business
case of every CSR initiative: How will we do well when we implement this CSR initiative?
The basic problem with the do good and you will do well doctrine is that it assumes
that, first, behaving more responsibly is in the self-interest of all firms, and second, that
CSR always makes business sense (Vogel, 2005, p. 34). It is not hard to see that both claims
can never be met in practice. When we are honest we have to admit that sometimes good
ethics will result in good business and sometimes it will not. As with many business
opportunities, the chances to make money by being good must be created, not found
(Zadek, 2004, p. 130). From a business case approach to CSR this inevitably results in
opportunism: companies will favour the most profitable CSR projects, instead of the
socially most needed ones (Shamir, 2008). Or to put it in more popular terms: a business
case approach of CSR results in business cherry-picking the social issues agenda.
This reasoning easily results in an attitude where it does not matter what you do, as
long as you do some good (Cerin, 2004). We observe this attitude many times as a
response to responsible purchasing activities in the business-to-business market: our
IJSSP client expects us to behave responsibly and therefore we will use green energy from
now on and we offer fair trade fruits in our company restaurant. This attitude fits in a
30,11/12 business case approach to CSR, but it basically just distracts company leaders from the
urgent issues when it comes to their core processes. Rather, business leaders should
start with questions like how their company has an impact on society, what
responsibilities are related to that impact and what kind of value the company adds to
its various stakeholders. For example for a consultancy firm this approach would focus
624 CSR not on green energy and fair trade products, but on the environmental and social
impacts of their consultancy activities. In this line of reasoning, Cummings and Keen
(2008, p. 102) point at the importance for leaders to frame their actions in a broad
perspective: Sometimes we say to leaders: Dont just stand there, do something! but
in many cases, we should be saying: Dont just do something, stand there[1].
As a consequence, for employees and managers a business case approach tends to
make the debate about CSR seem irrelevant. When there are customers interested in
buying green products, companies will produce them. And when costs can be saved
through energy reductions, managers would be stupid if they do not explore this.
Companies do not need a CSR discourse for that. It is just economic rationality applied to
business and the market will thus produce CSR by itself. The problem with this
argument is the hidden assumption that market outcomes are the best possible outcome
that an economy can have, as if our world of market-based economies is the best of all
possible economic worlds. This seems quite far fetched to believe. To the extent that it is
not plausible that all market outcomes are automatically morally good outcomes, one
cannot assume that economic motives will suffice to promote CSR. Rather, it is likely that
there will be at least some ethically desirable CSR initiatives that happen to be not
profitable. It is also likely that there are at least some profitable initiatives in the realm of
CSR that are in fact not desirable from an ethical standpoint. This is the part of the social
responsibility of companies that the business case paradigm of CSR will never disclose
(Scherer and Palazzo, 2007). In other words, the business case model leads to a deficient
CSR orientation and motivation of companies and may well create a serious risk of
ethical complacency and ethical detachment, when business people feel that they are not
morally obliged to act ethically outside the realm of the profitable.
Examples abound. Charity initiatives for children are much more popular as CSR
projects than initiatives aimed at older people, for example. Obviously, children create
more desirable brand associations than old folks do. For most brands, young is a
better brand association than old. But are companies responsibilities towards children
greater than their responsibility towards older people? Maybe not. Where companies
could pool resources to jointly tackle a social issue more effectively than they could do on
their own, the motivation of each individual company to cooperate is diminished by their
need to be individually recognizable in the project. If the individual contribution of a
company is no longer identifiable in the cooperation, then the business case for CSR is
seriously undermined. Also, a company that can create a competitive advantage through
CSR, could perhaps create even greater competitive advantages through other ways. Or
the company could after time discover investment areas that yield higher returns than
through CSR. How can the profit motive sustain a companys enduring commitment to
CSR, when so many potential distractions are built into it?

3.2 A business case approach to CSR leaves institutional blockades to CSR intact
A business case approach to CSR implies that when it is true that it is in the
corporations self-interest to be responsible, it is all right to focus the corporate mindset
strictly on the success of the organization. Therefore it is no problem if employees are The glass
rewarded only on financial results, if people just talk about the business case for new ceiling of
investments and so on, because in the long term this orientation also facilitates CSR
activities. Therefore, according to the business case approach to CSR it is just about CSR
business as usual. But at the same time, several studies show that the institutional
arrangements within organizations are important blockades for making progress in CSR
(Avastone Consulting, 2007; Krauthammer, 2009). Embedding CSR requires therefore 625
both actions on a collective level in order to encompass the conditions of the market
system and actions on the individual level in order to encompass the personal mindset
about what people want in their work. This challenge to combine individual and
collective aspects is captured well in a quote from a Lifeworth report. Lifeworth produces
a quarterly review of developments in the area of CSR. In the review over 2009 they state:
Our understanding has been that much of the emphasis in the professional services field
focuses on the organisation not on the person within it or the system around it. We
believe that the most important work today is both deeply personal and highly systemic.
People need to find ways of succeeding in their organisations, by transforming those
organisations to succeed in societies, by transforming those societies to succeed in the
world. More simply: people need to be able to serve the world while not bankrupting
their organisation or getting the sack! (Bendell, 2009, p. 15).
Several studies show that companies increasingly understand the importance of
embedding CSR but struggle with the how-question: The common overriding challenge
described by all participants was that of embedding sustainability planting
sustainability roots deeply into the business (Avastone Consulting, 2007, p. 6). In a study
at Nyenrode Business Universiteit in 2008 amongst 40 multinational companies located
in the Netherlands, it appeared that the biggest challenge for embedding CSR was the
link between HR instruments with the objectives behind CSR programmes. In all, 91
per cent of the respondents stated that they think it is (very) important that HR
instruments like rewards, training and management development support CSR while
only 24 per cent of the same respondents reported that these instruments are supporting
CSR. This is a striking outcome because it manoeuvers employees in an impossible
position; on the one hand it is expected that they are actively engaged in CSR initiatives
while on the other hand they are not selected, trained or rewarded to do so. This constitutes
a paradoxical situation for employees. Due to societal developments like globalization and
the public debate about CSR, employees increasingly acknowledge that it is important to
include a broader responsibility in corporate decision making. However, employees are still
selected, trained and rewarded based on a small set of financial indicators.
The only way out of this paradox is a different corporate mindset. CSR is not about
doing business as usual. It is about doing business responsibly in a dynamic market
where many risks and opportunities exist. As in any other business strategy, the
success of a CSR strategy depends on the market dynamics of what competitors do, it
depends on whether clients trust your fair trade labels, it depends on how it affects the
loyalty of the employees. Such an approach requires embedding CSR in the entire
business, so people at all levels of the organization are triggered to think, communicate
and act on the specific CSR issues they face in their work (Brown, 2005). If the
corporate mindset is not changed, then it becomes very difficult for employees to
initiate CSR activities. They might see opportunities to act more responsibly and even
create long term benefits for the organization, but on a daily basis, they are evaluated
by other criteria.
IJSSP 3.3 A business case approach to CSR drives out intrinsic motivation for CSR
The business case approach to CSR can be used very well to activate the people who
30,11/12 are sceptical about CSR: you dont have to convince them of the importance of CSR, you
just have to show that there is a business case for CSR activities. The downside
however is that you risk losing the believers. With this term we refer to the group of
people who are intrinsically motivated to pursue CSR, who are initiating an activity for
its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself, as opposed to doing an
626 activity to obtain an external goal (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
It is especially self-determination theory that puts forward relevant points in relation
to intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation. First of all, this theory states that
employees will be more committed, creative and productive if they have the perception
that they are intrinsically motivated to do that task (Deci and Ryan, 2000). For simple
tasks this might not be necessary. The use of carrot and stick motivators will probably
be more effective, but for complex tasks intrinsic motivation proves to be more effective
(Pink, 2009). Employees who consider themselves autonomous, competent and working
on something that is larger than themselves (loyalty, purpose) tend to be initiators of
actions rather than followers. This is very important in an area like CSR, where new
approaches are a key to overcoming unsustainable environmental and social practices.
Second, self-determination theory builds upon earlier experiments on human
behaviour showing that external tangible rewards decrease a persons intrinsic
motivation to perform a task (Greene, Sternberg and Lepper, 1976). This is called the
overjustification effect: If you start rewarding people for tasks they already enjoyed,
people create the perception that they are performing the behaviour for the reward.
The overall effect is a shift in motivation to extrinsic factors and the undermining of
pre-existing intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). This is exactly what is happening
when you introduce a business case approach to people who are intrinsically motivated
to work on CSR. Framing the debate about CSR in a business case language in order to
convince the sceptics will at the same time alienate the believers. This is also illustrated
by a statement like: Finally I thought I worked for a company that cares about the
environment and acts on social injustice, but now it turns out that my colleagues only
care about the interests of the corporation.
So when people are intrinsically motivated for CSR this is something to cherish and
to build upon. But how many people are intrinsically motivated for CSR? This is
difficult to examine and is changing over time. The ongoing debate about CSR and the
increased awareness of social issues, both within the local context as well as on a global
level, probably results in a broader base of employees who consider environmental care
and contributing to society as a vital part of their working life. For some indication,
research on cultural creatives shows that in most developed countries almost 30
per cent of the inhabitants intrinsically care for the environment, feel connected to
citizens all over the globe and want to act on this in their daily activities. This
percentage has been growing over the years (Ray and Anderson, 2000). On the other
hand, there are also many people who are still willing to, or are actively looking for
opportunities to, live on the credit card of someone elses children. But for making
progress in the area of CSR it is more important that a large group of the workforce is
willing to initiate change and, by doing so, might trigger others to work along. It would
be a missed opportunity for companies not to unleash the knowledge and societal
concerns of an increasingly large part of the workforce.
It seems as if there is a paradox between developing CSR based on the intrinsic
motivation of employees and the previous mechanism of removing the institutional
blockades to CSR. This is a difficult dilemma that is also noted by Trevino et al. (2006, The glass
p. 966). They argue that there is a way to overcome this dilemma when we take a closer
look at it. The main issue is not that people want to be rewarded for ethical behaviour,
ceiling of
but they expect at least not to suffer from it. So first of all it is about removing the CSR
disincentives for working on CSR. Furthermore it is especially difficult to reward good
behaviour in the short term; however, in the long term there are possibilities to reward
CSR in the long term. For example, employees are aware of how one gets promoted. If
this is related to working on CSR, this gives a clear message that there is room within
627
that company for CSR initiatives. So, rewards are a limited tool for influencing specific
behaviours today and tomorrow, but they can certainly set the tone for whats expected
and rewarded in the long term (Trevino and Nelson, 1995, p. 150).

4. Discussion and conclusions

In this article we have argued that companies hit a glass ceiling when they use the
assumption that any CSR effort should be legitimized by instrumental arguments
towards increasing corporate profits. Such a business case approach to CSR has
inherent limitations because it results in opportunism with respect to the social issues
agenda, it leaves the institutional blockades to CSR intact and it drives out the intrinsic
motivation for CSR that is prevalent in an increasingly large part of the workforce.
Simply stating that good ethics is good business does not help.
But can companies adopt CSR policies based on other approaches than the business
case approach? Of course. In the introduction of the CSR concept, we already pointed at
two other approaches, namely a social values-led approach based on ethical
responsibility theory and a syncretic stewardship approach based on corporate
citizenship theory. Instead of a profit oriented starting point towards CSR, these other
approaches use different starting points like moral responsibilities of corporations or
the interdependence between different actors in production and consumption system.
Also, for these other approaches it is important to take the economic constraints into
account. A bankrupt company is of no use to anyone. But the road towards sound
economic results is different. Companies like Interface, Patagonia and Triodos Bank
have demonstrated for many years that these other approaches to CSR can generate
good results. Hence, it is not our claim in this article that all companies use a business
case approach, but when companies are using the business case approach towards CSR
they should be aware of the inherent limitations.
Our argument about the inherent limitations of a business case approach to CSR
should not be misunderstood as going back to ethical idealism or non-economic models
of an organization. Paying close attention to the economic constraints is a prerequisite
for every organization working in a competitive environment. Our argument is that to
embed CSR in an organization it is necessary to combine this orientation towards
economic constraints with an orientation towards individual and collective moral
values and to integrate these values in corporate decision making. In order to shatter
the glass ceiling, business leaders should reflect on what ethical guidelines they want
to hold up in good and bad times and use this sincere commitment as a foundation for
developing business models that are also economically sustainable. This makes
embedding CSR more complex and demanding, but it will also make it more apt to
meet the dilemmas and challenges inherent in CSR policies.
For regulators or business partners it is difficult to evaluate whether a company is
engaged in CSR based on a business case approach or on another approach. Ex post,
also companies who use a social values led or a stewardship approach the CSR policy
IJSSP have win-win results; otherwise the results would not be economically sustainable. But
30,11/12 in the process of creating these results the other parties involved will notice to what
extent a company has shown a stable commitment to achieve these results or whether
the CSR commitment was switched on and off depending on the calculated benefits of
its business impact (Weaver et al., 1999). Furthermore, the results will address a
broader range of issues because companies who work on CSR from a business case
628 approach will more easily keep aloof from issues where a win-win outcome is uncertain
because it is still to be created in the future (Zadek, 2004). For people inside a company
it is even more noticeable. They will perceive to what extent it is legitimate to bring
forward other arguments for CSR initiatives that are not directly linked to corporate
profits. For managers this requires a balancing act. They have to create a culture of
responsibility where it is legitimate to bring forward all considerations that are valued
by the human beings involved and they must use these considerations as a foundation
for innovating the products, services and business propositions of the company.
Our article also has important implications for stage models of CSR. For example the
stage model of Dunphy et al. (2007) points towards the ultimate goal of a sustaining
corporation, emanating from five developmental stages that all focus on a business case
approach to CSR. Especially for this last stage it becomes increasingly important to
address the moral foundations of CSR. Some companies started as a sustaining company
especially double-goal companies like Ben & Jerries, The Body Shop[2], Innocent
Drinks and Agro Fair and thinking about the moral responsibility of their
corporation might be natural to them. But for many contemporary companies entering
the stage of a sustaining corporation is not more of the same, but requires a novel
approach to CSR based on a moral compass. This will be increasingly difficult when
they have not learned, or have even unlearned, to frame CSR as a moral debate in the
preceding stages.

Notes
1. Quote based on a statement of David Kreuzer of the Masssachusetts, Institute of Technology.
2. An interesting development for especially the successful social ventures is that some of
them are taken over by multinationals. Then the question becomes how these companies
can maintain their collective mindset after the take-over or even how their distinct
background can be a stimulating factor for embedding CSR in the other parts of the
multinational company.

References
Avastone Consulting (2007), Leadership and the corporate sustainability challenge; mindsets in
action, available at: www.avastoneconsulting.com (accessed 12 December 2009).
Barney, J.B. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bendell, J. (2009), The Corporate Responsibility Movement; Five Years of Global Corporate
Responsibility Analysis from Lifeworth, 2001-2005, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Berger, I., Cunningham, P. and Drumwright, M. (2007), Mainstreaming corporate social
responsibility: developing markets of virtue, California Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 132-57.
Boatright, J. (1999), Does business ethics rest on a mistake?, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 9,
pp. 583-91.
Brown, B.C. (2005), Theory and practice of integral sustainable development: part 1 quadrants The glass
and the practitioner, AQAL, Vol. 1 No. 2, Summer.
Cerin, P. (2004), Where is corporate social responsibility actually heading?, Progress in
ceiling of
Industrial Ecology, Vol. 1, pp. 307-30. CSR
Cummings, T. and Keen, J. (2008), Leadership Landscapes, Palgrave MacMillan.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), The what and why of goal pursuits, Psychological Inquiry,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-68. 629
Deci, E., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. (1999), A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125,
pp. 627-88.
Drucker, P. (1973), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2007), Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability;
A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future, 2nd ed., Routledge, London and
New York, NY.
Freeman, E.D. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Friedman, M. (1970), The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, New York
Times Magazine, September 13.
Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by Agreement, Clarendon, Oxford.
Gond, J.P., Palazzo, G. and Basu, K. (2009), Reconsidering instrumental corporate social
responsibility through the Mafia metaphor, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 57-85.
Greene, D., Sternberg, B. and Lepper, M.R. (1976), Overjustification in a token economy, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 1219-34.
Habisch, A. and Jonker, J. (2004), Introduction, in Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M. and
Schmidpeter, R. (Eds), CSR across Europe, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 1-12.
Homann, K. and Blome-Drees, F. (1992), Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, Vandenhoeck,
Gottingen.
Homann, K. and Lutge, Ch. (2005), Einfuhrung in die Wirtschaftsethik, Lit, Munster.
Jensen, M.C. (2001), Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective
function, Journal of Corporate Applied Finance, Vol. 14, pp. 8-21.
Jeurissen, R. (2000), The social function of business ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10,
pp. 821-43.
Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility. Doing the Most Good for Your
Company and Your Cause, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Krauthammer (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility 2009: Building Blocks, Employee Perspectives
and Management Messages, survey conducted by Krauthammer together with the
Rotterdam School of Management and the University of Amsterdam, available at:
www.krauthammer.com/content.cfm?media1&id2157 (accessed 10 December 2009).
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2000), Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:
correlation or misspecification, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 603-9.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. and Wright, P. (2006), Corporate social responsibility: strategic
implications, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. (2003), Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by
business, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 268-305.
Mulligan, T.M. (1990), Justifying moral initiative by business, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 93-103.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance:
a meta-analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-41.
IJSSP Pink, D.H. (2009), Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, Riverhead.
30,11/12 Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), Strategy and society; the link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp.
78-92.
Ray, P. and Anderson, R. (2000), The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the
World, Random House Inc., New York, NY.
630 Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. and Steger, U. (2005), The business case for corporate
sustainability; literature review and research options, European Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27-36.
Scherer, A. and Palazzo, G. (2007), Towards a political conception of corporate responsibility:
business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32, pp. 1096-120.
SER (2001), Corporate Social Responsibility; A Dutch Approach, Van Gorcum, Assen.
Shamir, R. (2008), The age of responsibilization: on market-embedded morality, Economy and
Society, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K. (1995), Managing Business Ethics; Straight Talk about How to Do it
Right, Wiley, New York, NY.
Trevino, L.K., Weaver, G.R. and Reynolds, S.J. (2006), Behavioral ethics in organizations:
a review, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 951-90.
Van de Ven, B. and Jeurissen, R. (2005), Competing responsibly, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 15, pp. 299-317.
Van Tulder, R. and Van der Zwart, A. (2006), International Business-Society Management,
Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization, Routledge, Oxford.
Vogel, D. (2005), The Market for Virtue; The Potential Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility,
Brookings Institute Press, Washington, DC.
Weaver, G.R., Trevino, L.K. and Cochran, P.L. (1999), Integrated and decoupled corporate social
performance: management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics
practices, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 539-52.
Weber, M. (2008), The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company level
measurement approach for CSR, European Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 247-61.
Windsor, D. (2001), The future of corporate social responsibility, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-56.
Windsor, D. (2006), Corporate social responsibility: three key approaches, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 93-114.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Zadek, S. (2004), The path to corporate responsibility, Harvard Business Review, pp. 125-31.

Further reading
EU (2001), Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Responsibility,
Commission for European Communities.
EU (2002), White Paper on Environmental Liability, Commission for European Communities.

About the authors

Andre H.J. Nijhof (1969) is Associate Professor at the European Institute for Business Ethics,
part of Nyenrode Business Universiteit. He received a Masters degree in business
administration and his PhD at the University of Twente. After his PhD he was senior
 consultant at Q-Consult and project leader in the national research programme on corporate The glass
social responsibility (CSR). He has published extensively in both Dutch and international
journals like Journal of Business Ethics, Corporate Governance and Leadership & ceiling of
Organization Development Journal. Since 2007 Andre H.J. Nijhof has worked for Nyenrode on CSR
executive education programmes like CSR in Action!, in company training sessions, dilemma
workshops and education for the MSc and iMBA programmes. Andre H.J. Nijhof is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: a.nijhof@nyenrode.nl
Ronald J.M. Jeurissen (1958) is Professor of Business Ethics at Nyenrode Business 631
Universiteit, and Chairman of the European Institute for Business Ethics. He received his
Masters degrees from Tilburg University in Theology and Philosophy, and his PhD from the
Radboud University. He has published widely on business ethics, including six books, and
articles in Journal of Business Ethics and Business Ethics Quarterly. His current research interests
are economic ethics, the theoretical foundations of business ethics, and marketing ethics.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats